# adaher, you cowardly shit **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 17, 2015, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798 "2015-11-17T13:39:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798/41 "2015-11-17T15:39:33Z")
Yeah, and I kinda want those things secured better too. To prove how stuck on PC Democrats get, think about port security. Democrats during the Bush years recited port security like it was a mantra. Sure, port security is a potential place where dangerous people and stuff can be imported, no question. It also just happens to be a fairly minor risk that can be dealt with without offending anyone, whereas border security, which is far more important, involves pissing some people off who happen to be Democratic-supporting minorities. So we can’t possibly secure the border. But if you’re not going to secure the border, port security is just a waste of time. It actually is a Maginot Line, you spend tons of money to secure ports so terrorists and narcotraffickers just don’t use the ports. You’ve accomplished nothing. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798/42 "2015-11-17T15:40:10Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > They voluntarily signed up for that sort of thing or do you think they thought they signed up to pet puppies and smell flowers? I signed up to serve and defend. I’m glad I served and I’m glad my service is complete. They (we) didn’t sign up for wars of choice and to die for nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798/43 "2015-11-17T15:41:32Z")
> [@](#): > > Yeah, and I kinda want those things secured better too. To prove how stuck on PC Democrats get, think about port security. Democrats during the Bush years recited port security like it was a mantra. Sure, port security is a potential place where dangerous people and stuff can be imported, no question. It also just happens to be a fairly minor risk that can be dealt with without offending anyone, whereas border security, which is far more important, involves pissing some people off who happen to be Democratic-supporting minorities. So we can’t possibly secure the border. > > But if you’re not going to secure the border, port security is just a waste of time. It actually is a Maginot Line, you spend tons of money to secure ports so terrorists and narcotraffickers just don’t use the ports. You’ve accomplished nothing. Okay, so we’ve established that this is not a necessary evil, but a useless one. Maybe in the future when the borders are secured we can talk about rejecting refugees. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798/44 "2015-11-17T15:41:59Z")
It’s not a war for choice if you’re going after the people who went after us. And if you’re going to get on your moral high horse, then you should be condemning the Obama administration in pretty strident terms since they are putting servicemen and women at risk for a war of choice. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798/45 "2015-11-17T15:43:03Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Okay, so we’ve established that this is not a necessary evil, but a useless one. Maybe in the future when the borders are secured we can talk about rejecting refugees. It’s not my side that has opposed border security. If we had our way we’d be doing our absolute best on ports, the border, internal security, and immigration policy. Your side just says “port security” so they can pretend to give a damn. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798/46 "2015-11-17T15:44:18Z")
Yes, yes, port security concerns are a fig leaf. Can we let the refugees in now? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798/47 "2015-11-17T15:46:05Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s not a war for choice if you’re going after the people who went after us. It’s a war of choice when no country attacked us, virtually no actual damage was done, and the alternative to war is “things continue as they are and we’re doing fine”. If we don’t go to war, America continues without anything close to an existential threat. It would cease to be a war of choice if an existential threat emerges. > [@](#): > > And if you’re going to get on your moral high horse, then you should be condemning the Obama administration in pretty strident terms since they are putting servicemen and women at risk for a war of choice. I do, and have. Do you not read what I post? Obama’s wrong for being as involved as we are… it’s just far, far better than what cowardly, fearful chickenhawks like Lindsey Graham propose. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798/48 "2015-11-17T15:48:02Z")
You proved my point there. The difference in rhetoric you use towards Obama, “Wrong” is so mild it’s as if you can’t even work much indignation at all, actually. But Graham, now him you can get mad at, even though he’s served, as McCain did. Now if Obama was actually listening to people who have served and currently served, maybe we’d make some progress. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798/49 "2015-11-17T15:52:06Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > You proved my point there. The difference in rhetoric you use towards Obama, “Wrong” is so mild it’s as if you can’t even work much indignation at all, actually. But Graham, now him you can get mad at, even though he’s served, as McCain did. Now if Obama was actually listening to people who have served and currently served, maybe we’d make some progress. Whatever bravery Graham and McCain have showed in their lives was in the past – their modern incarnations are cowardice personified. Obama’s wrongness pales in comparison to what they advocate, which would result in thousands of dead Americans and a much weaker America. Strength, in this case, is resisting the calls for a war of choice. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798/50 "2015-11-17T15:58:31Z")
I wonder what you’d find if you polled active servicemembers? But the point is, the President did his job by defining the mission. Destroy ISIS. He’s been told that ground troops are required to do that. So did he back off the mission? No, he told his generals to do it anyway without the resources they needed, and furthermore has repeated the mistake of micromanaging the bombing: > **[Military Hates White House ‘Micromanagement’ of ISIS War](https://www.thedailybeast.com/military-hates-white-house-micromanagement-of-isis-war)** > > The Pentagon brass placed in charge of implementing Obama’s war against ISIS are getting fed up with the short leash the White House put them on. while learning the lessons of Iraq, the President managed to forget the lessons of Vietnam. One of which is that bombing and “advisors” leads to troop commitments. Obama has so much hubris that he thinks he can control this war. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798/51 "2015-11-17T16:00:57Z")
> [@](#): > > When you accept that your position puts us in danger, then I’ll acknowledge you as a fellow adult. What you mean is “when I succumb to the same irrational hysteria as you”. Of course there are risks involved. I am far more aware of them than you appear to be. You, on the other hand, are blowing tiny risks out of proportion while completely ignoring the risks inherent in the alternative. That’s not being an adult; that’s Dunning-Kruger in action. > [@adaher](#): > > Because you’re immature. Adults understand that they can be right, but unfortunate problems still arise from their choices. > > Reminds me of the general immaturity of critics of US foreign policy. “We supported the mujahadeen! This was our fault!” Um, and we, um, WEREN’T supposed to support the mujahadeen? It’s not as if policymakers here didn’t understand the risks, it’s why we gave them Stinger missiles that couldn’t be used after a certain period of time. We had ADULTS in charge who took calculated risks and accepted that things could go wrong. > > What I see here are mostly children who moralize and act as if doing right always leads to right, and if it leads to wrong it’s not their responsibility because they did what was right. What I see is a coward doing wrong and claiming it’s not his problem. It’s ironic you speak of taking calculated risks and accepting that things could go wrong when all you’re doing is avoiding a tiny risk for yourself in return for a much greater risk for others. > [@adaher](#): > > It’s not a war for choice if you’re going after the people who went after us. And if several thousand other innocent people who vaguely resemble those people get killed in the process, well, we are under zero obligation to help people outside our country. Can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs and all that. > [@](#): > > And if you’re going to get on your moral high horse, then you should be condemning the Obama administration in pretty strident terms since they are putting servicemen and women at risk for a war of choice. “Let’s stop talking about MY cowardice! Look over there - Obama is doing a thing!” Pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798/52 "2015-11-17T16:03:19Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > What you mean is “when I succumb to the same irrational hysteria as you”. Of course there are risks involved. I am far more aware of them than you appear to be. You, on the other hand, are blowing tiny risks out of proportion while completely ignoring the risks inherent in the alternative. That’s not being an adult; that’s Dunning-Kruger in action. I don’t see it as a tiny risk. I see an attack by a refugee or refugees as a near certainty. ISIS has said directly that this is what they are planning. Unlike Al Qaeda, they have so far delivered on their threats. > [@](#): > > “Let’s stop talking about MY cowardice! Look over there - Obama is doing a thing!” > > Pathetic. Actually, I"m just observing that the President is waging a war of choice. It makes no sense to condemn wars of choice as if we aren’t already in a war of choice by your own definition. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798/53 "2015-11-17T16:18:05Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I wonder what you’d find if you polled active servicemembers? Mostly that they’re willing to give their lives in the service of their country, but also that they expect us not to waste them. > [@](#): > > He’s been told that ground troops are required to do that. So did he back off the mission? No Sigh … you know as well as we do what you’d say if he did commit ground troops, don’t you? > [@](#): > > the President managed to forget the lessons of Vietnam. One of which is that bombing and “advisors” leads to troop commitments. See? You couldn’t even keep your story straight _within the same damn post_, could you? Yes, if we had only committed more troops in Vietnam, against an actual state and actual armed forces, it would have been a shining victory. :rolleyes: So, that’s what we need to do in Syria, just like we did in Iraq. > [@](#): > > Obama has so much hubris that he thinks he can control this war. While the military command (the Daily Beast? Really?), even blessed with tunnel vision and narrow mission definition, unencumbered by any larger strategic or human considerations, does not? Really? > [@adaher](#): > > I don’t see it as a tiny risk. I see an attack by a refugee or refugees as a near certainty. If there’s anything you should have learned in your time on this board, it’s that your predictive skills are shit and you need to listen to others. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798/54 "2015-11-17T16:31:08Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I don’t see it as a tiny risk. I see an attack by a refugee or refugees as a near certainty. And in another time you’d have seen Reds under the bed. After all, Khruschev said they would bury us… > [@](#): > > ISIS has said directly that this is what they are planning. Unlike Al Qaeda, they have so far delivered on their threats. Yes, just look at the refugees who committed the Paris attacks, oh wait, no, all but one were French and the last has yet to be verified as an immigrant. “ISIS is going to attack” does not translate into “ISIS is going to sneak into the country with the refugees and attack”. Far easier to come as a tourist or a student than a refugee. And ISIS have also said that their goal is to get rid of the “grayzone” of Muslims just trying to live peaceful lives, deliberately provoking the West into treating all Muslims as potential enemies in order to force them to take the opposing side. How does it feel to be achieving the enemy’s goals for them, **adaher**? > [@](#): > > Actually, I"m just observing that the President is waging a war of choice. It makes no sense to condemn wars of choice as if we aren’t already in a war of choice by your own definition. Actually, you’re just trying to change the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798/55 "2015-11-17T16:35:49Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > What are the consequences? That we don’t get attacked by refugees we let in? Oh the horror! I don’t know how I’ll sleep at night. > > I do accept that bigotry is not a good thing. The same as I accept that war is not a good thing, and the use of force in general is not a good thing. But there are necessary evils, and this is one of them. Well, if you’re a religious man, the consequences could be an eternity of hell fire. From what I’ve heard about Jesus, I think he’d be on the side of the refugees and against bigotry (and a little more definitively than “not a good thing”). ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798/56 "2015-11-17T16:52:45Z")
Coincidentally, [most Americans didn’t want Jewish refugees to be able to resettle in the US back in 1938.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/17/what-americans-thought-of-jewish-refugees-on-the-eve-of-world-war-ii/?tid=sm_fb) Shameful then, shameful now. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798/57 "2015-11-17T16:56:38Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > There could be a dozen ISIS assholes among the refugees, with the abilities to buy guns and shoot people in a shopping mall. This is all possible. > [@adaher](#): > > What are the consequences? That we don’t get attacked by refugees we let in? Oh the horror! I don’t know how I’ll sleep at night. Do you have even the slightest clue how thorough the background check is on each refugee who is processed to enter the U.S.? It’s a one- to two-year process, wherein they must essentially prove a negative: their entire entire life is examined and must be shown to be free of any possibility of even the slightest misbehavior. (And that’s on top of the requirement that they prove they are being persecuted for one of a certain set of reasons.) I bet there are elected members of our government with misdemeanors who would be rejected refugee status if they were in that position. The likelihood of an ISIS advocate being granted refugee status in the U.S. is so low, that–if that’s what you’re afraid of–then you also might as well just stop anyone from entering or leaving the country at all. (And stop inviting you in-laws over for Christmas, while your at it, because who knows?) > [@adaher](#): > > Letting refugees in has not helped Europe, in fact it may have increase ISIL recruitment. Do you realize that all those people who are going to Europe are NOT refugees, but rather people who are _seeking refugee status_? (All those people that Germany lets in are merely going to be _applicants_ for refugee status, who can be rejected and returned.) There is a huge difference between someone who just shows up in another country asking for asylum and someone who applies for refugee status and eventually has it granted. Even as someone who works in refugee resettlement, I can understand a presidential candidate bringing up this canard–that’s what pandering candidates do, after all. (Though the candidates who are members of Congress are privy to all the facts about refugee processing, so they actually know the truth, and are fully cognizant of their dissimulation in this discourse.) But _you’re_ not running running for president, so you have no excuse to mindlessly buy into their posturing. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798/58 "2015-11-17T17:03:29Z")
If someone [firebombs a mosque](http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/2015/11/15/peterborough-mosque-fire-under-investigation), or [attacks a muslim woman](http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/police-treating-alleged-assault-robbery-of-muslim-woman-near-school-on-monday-as-hate-crime) as she drops her children off at school, then I think they should be charged with terrorism. It should be made absolutely crystal clear to them that they are being charged with aiding and abetting ISIS. They are committing acts that directly benefit ISIS, and they should be charged with helping those terrorists. ISIS has been very, very clear about their goals; They want to divide the world into “us” and “them”, into “Muslim” and “Infidel”. They want to provoke a world war between the Muslim population and everyone else. In order to do this, they commit horrible, horrible crimes and inflict death and suffering on innocents. Their crimes don’t do much by themselves. But the GOAL of the crimes is to inflame stupid people in the west to treat Muslims badly. If western and moderate Muslims are treated badly, ISIS hopes that they will join them in fighting the “other”. By attacking Muslims, these idiots are doing the work of ISIS for them. They might as well be following the ISIS handbook and obeying direct orders from the ISIS leaders. I put people like **adaher** in a similar (though not directly criminal) camp. **adaher** is supporting the ideals of ISIS, and aiding and abetting ISIS in their work. ISIS absolutely LOVES, LOVES, LOVES people like **adaher**. His attitudes towards refugees are EXACTLY what they hoped to obtain by the bombings in Paris. **adaher** might as well be obeying direct orders from them. ISIS wants to divide us; **adaher** wants to make moves to divide us. ISIS wants us to fear; **adaher** spreads fear. ISIS wants to promote an “us” versus “them” ideology; **adaher** promotes an “us” versus “them” ideology. **adaher** (and those like him) is a traitor, and a supporter of the ideals of a terrorist organization. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798/59 "2015-11-17T17:05:59Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I wonder what you’d find if you polled active servicemembers? But the point is, the President did his job by defining the mission. Destroy ISIS. He’s been told that ground troops are required to do that. So did he back off the mission? No, he told his generals to do it anyway without the resources they needed, and furthermore has repeated the mistake of micromanaging the bombing: > > [Military Hates White House ‘Micromanagement’ of ISIS War](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/31/military-upset-with-white-house-micromanagement-of-isis-war.html) If true, bad Obama. Still, this is all much, much better than actually committing to ground troops. Way, way better for America. Your plan is way, way worse. > [@](#): > > while learning the lessons of Iraq, the President managed to forget the lessons of Vietnam. One of which is that bombing and “advisors” leads to troop commitments. Obama has so much hubris that he thinks he can control this war. The only thing that leads to troop commitments is the President ordering troop commitments. As the Commander in Chief, the President does control when this happens. So yes, he can control how involved we are. We don’t invade unless he gives the order – and giving this order would be terrible for America. No more wars of choice, which means no more wars unless we face an existential threat. ISIS doesn’t come close. ISIS isn’t even an existential threat to Israel, right next door. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798/60 "2015-11-17T17:17:22Z")
EP made many excellent points. Of course, I’d never accuse adaher of wanting to aid ISIS, he’s basically a good guy who supports the wrong political side. Adaher’s postings aren’t going to change the global situation, but the inexcusable behavior of Republican politicians will. They are so convinced that terrorist events help them politically that even before the bleeding stops, they’re out there grandstanding. The GOP governors are trying to block the arrival of Syrian refugees, not out of any genuine safety concerns, but because they love to exploit fear, bigotry, and hatred. The Republican presidential candidates are diving directly toward the bottom of the barrel and actively fanning the flames by asinine remarks such as we should be limiting refugees to Christians. Maybe this will give them a temporary jump in the polls, but when the knees stop jerking and things settle down, saner heads will hopefully prevail and these losers will be called out for their pandering to bigotry. Adaher may be dead wrong about what he posts, but he isn’t the problem. Trump, Carson, Jeb, et al are. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adaher-you-cowardly-shit/737798.md?page=4)